Enable OfflinePV and Beamspot in trackingLowPU era #14150
Conversation
The trackingLowPU era has been cooked to perform tracking also in the B=0 case, when the Pixel detector could be excluded from data taking. Tracking was already working, but the configuration for primary vertices and beamspot calculation had to be tuned to properly work also in the case in which Pixels are out of data taking. The code has been successfully tested on Run 269207.
|
A new Pull Request was created by @rovere (Marco Rovere) for CMSSW_8_0_X. It involves the following packages: DQM/BeamMonitor @cvuosalo, @cmsbuild, @deguio, @slava77, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are list here #13028 |
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
the set of changes with whitespaces skipped is more clear |
|
... the meaning of "trackingLowPU" is becoming more and more "trackingNoPixel" |
|
trackingNoPixelB0T, since with 3.8T we can safely use the ordinary tracking, even w/o pixels. |
|
Or "trackingB0T"? (I'm just thinking that for "trackingNoPixel*" we could, in principle, just remove all pixel-seeded iterations, which, on the other hand, is probably not what we want to do for all 0T reconstruction). |
|
trackingB0T even better |
|
On 4/20/16 11:33 AM, Marco Rovere wrote:
no, this will not work, for a decent pileup (>10) we will run regular So "NoPixel" should be in the name |
|
This is NOT noPixel, LowPileup or B=0 is just RunI-like config |
|
On 4/20/16 1:14 PM, Vincenzo Innocente wrote:
Is it worth supporting Run1-like long-term in this current form For operations we need more practical setups for the detector setup,
|
|
@cvuosalo: Of course you have to change the input filename and use any from run 269207. I got rid of all AlCa* stuff to make it run faster. Let me know if you need anything more. |
|
+1 |
|
@rovere: I tested 120,000 events against baseline CMSSW_8_0_4 and found no effect from this PR. What differences should I expect to find? |
|
@cvuosalo I'll try to reprocess the run and report back in this thread. |
|
@rovere: Thanks for spotting my error. I had the correct dataset but the file was from the wrong run. I obtained a correct file for run 269207, and now the test results do show differences due to the correct beam spot and primary vertices. Details in the next message. |
|
A test was performed using run 269207, which had a quiet beam and no Pixel, with 500 events against baseline CMSSW_8_0_4. The command used was: The results show the effects of the corrected beam spot and filled primary vertex collections, and no other problems. Some example plots follow.
|
|
+1 Enabling offline vertices and correct beam spot calculation for the B=0T and no-Pixel situation. There should be no change in standard workflows. The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_8_0_X_2016-04-19-1100 show no significant differences, as expected. A test of a special run that had quiet beam and no Pixel shows the correct behavior as discussed above. Without these special circumstances, this PR causes no changes. |
cmsbuild
added
reconstruction-approved
fully-signed
and removed
pending-signatures
reconstruction-pending
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar |
|
There is no 81X version, right? |
|
Ciao @slava77, |
|
Ciao Marco, |
|
+1 |
The trackingLowPU era has been cooked to perform tracking
also in the B=0 case, when the Pixel detector could be
excluded from data taking. Tracking was already working, but
the configuration for primary vertices and beamspot
calculation had to be tuned to properly work also in the
case in which Pixels are out of data taking. The code has
been successfully tested on Run 269207.